Cost Optimization of Using Geogrids Vs Piles in The Foundation of Interchange Bridges

International
Journal of Civil Engineering

and OF
Technology
ISSN 0976 AND
6308 (Print),
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
CIVIL(IJCIET),
ENGINEERING
ISSN 0976 6316(Online), Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 181-191 IAEME
TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)
ISSN 0976 6308 (Print)

ISSN 0976 6316(Online)
Volume 5, Issue 11, November (2014), pp. 181-191
IAEME: www.iaeme.com/Ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.9290 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJCIET
IAEME
COST OPTIMIZATION OF USING GEOGRIDS VS PILES

IN THE FOUNDATION OF INTERCHANGE BRIDGES
Zeyad S. M. Khaled1,
1
Raid R. Al-Omari2,
Tawfek Sheer Ali3
Assistant Professor, College of Engineering, Al-Nahrain University, Baghdad, Iraq

2
Professor, College of Engineering, Al-Nahrain University, Baghdad, Iraq
3
Assistant Lecturer, College of Engineering, Kufa University, Najaf, Iraq
ABSTRACT
The use of soil reinforcement has become widely adopted due to successive development of
different types of geosynthetics. Although soil reinforcement had gained wide acceptance in other
countries, Iraq is still hesitated to adopt the system. This paper is an economic study to investigate
the feasibility of using geogrids in the foundation of interchange bridges, resting on sandy soils,
instead of piles. The design restrictions are imposed as design constraints in the analysis of both
cases (geogrids and piles). Choice of the design parameters are made in a way that fit local
circumstances in middle and south Iraq considering common safety factors. Three layers of two
types of geogrids are analyzed namely Netlon CE121 and Tensar SS2. MATLAB package program
is used for optimization. The constraints and the objective function are designed to optimize one unit
block of foundation (under one piles cap). Tables of optimal costs and figures showing cost behavior
for different combinations of loads and angles of internal friction of soil are presented. It has been
found that reinforced soil is considered as cost-effective solution which is much more economical
than piles. Based on a typical design commonly used on local scale, cost saving appear to reach
(54%).
Keywords: Bearing Capacity, Geosynthetics, Netlon CE121 and Tensar SS2 Geogrids, Optimal
Cost Design, Optimization, Sandy Soil.
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper is an economic study of using geogrids in the foundation of highway multi-level
intersection bridges instead of piles. The study is limited to the range of applied loads prevailing in
most of highway projects in middle and south Iraq and the bearing capacity of reinforced soil of the
most common type founded in the aforementioned area where most of the soil is sand. MATLAB is
used as an optimization technique in order to find the optimum cost of construction of both types of
181
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print),
foundations (reinforced soil and piles). Comparison between the two cases is adopted to decide
whether the use of geogrids is more economic than the use of piles within the range of applied loads.
The cost of construction is estimated according to the prevailing local prices at the time of this study.
1.1 Research Objectives
The objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility of using geogrids in the foundation
of highway multi-level intersection bridges resting on sandy soil instead of piles.
1.2 Research Justification
Although accomplishing high quality construction projects with minimum cost and time is
everybody's goal, an additional need to substitute piles with soil reinforcement arise when some
underground structures like subways undercrosss the location of work where no piles can be
installed.
1.3 Research Hypothesis
The bearing capacity of the soil can be highly improved by reinforcing it with geogrids, so it
can bear the applied load resulted from dead and live loads of the bridge, without any need to use
costly piles.
2. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Design drawings and calculations of thirty multilevel intersection bridges in Al-Najaf,
Karbala, and surrounding are reviewed in order to determine the range of the most common applied
loads, the number of piles per cap, the number of piers on each cap, and dimensions. A
representative sample of typical design related to the bridge of Northern Garage in Al-Najaf City is
adopted as a case study. Review of drawings and calculations reveals that the applied load on each
pier is within (10386 kN). The pile cap is considered to be rigid having four piles with pile diameter
of (1.5 m) and pile length of (18 m) according to the typical design. This means that the total applied
load on the pile cap is (41544 kN). On the other hand the analysis covers the case of using geogrids
instead of piles for the same area of interaction as shown in Fig. (1). Two types of geogrids are put
into consideration, namely Netlon CE121 and Tensar SS2. According to previous research conducted
by the same authors, three layers of geogrids at a depth equal to the width of the footing (B) and a
distance of (3.6B) from the centerline of footing in both directions is found to be adequate [1][2].
Figure 1: One design unit for the sake of cost comparison

182
3. OBJECTIVE FUNCTION OF THE REINFORCED SOIL CASE

As shown in Fig. (1), the zone of interaction in this case have the dimensions of
(7.2B L h), where dimensions are in meters and (h = B) according to [1] [2]. The objective
function is formulated to yield the optimum size of footing and its cost in IQD (Iraqi Dinars)
according to the following input parameters; total load on footing (P), unit weight of existing natural
soil (s), angle of internal friction of existing natural soil (), cost of geogrids (cg) in (IQD/m2), cost
of excavation (ce) in (IQD/m3), cost of filling and compaction (cf) in (IQD/m3), cost of other work
items including laying of geogrids (cw) in (IQD/m2) for each layer, and safety factor (SF). The cost
of the concrete footing itself is excluded because it is the same in both cases (reinforced soil and
piles). The objective function is expressed in MATLAB as follows:
F = nl*cg*sz*x(1)*x(2) + ef*ce*x(1)^2*x(2) + nl*cw*sz*x(1)*x(2) + ef*sz*cf*x(1)^2*x(2)
(1)
where,
x(1): width of footing in meters (B) or depth of the end layer of geogrids in meters for (h = B).
x(2): L: length of footing in meters.
nl: number of geogrids layers (three).
sz: stress zone on both sides of the footing (7.2B).
ef: expansion factor for excavation and filling.
4. CONSTRAINTS OF THE REINFORCED SOIL CASE
The constraints include both types of failure that design should account for, soil failure and
geogrids structural failure. Soil failure must meet both main criteria of bearing capacity and
settlement limitation. Structural failure must meet shear and flexural strength of geogrids.
Constraints are formulated as follows:
4.1 Bearing Capacity Constraint of the Reinforced Soil Case
The allowable soil pressure must be greater than or equal to the maximum applied pressure
(qall qmax) or (qult/SF qmax). The ultimate bearing capacity (qult) can be calculated using Hansens
equation as follows [3]:
qult = cNcscdc + qNqdq + o.5sBNsd
(2)
For the footing resting on the surface of sand (c = 0), the equation of bearing capacity will be:
qult = o.5sBNsd
(3)
where:
Nq = etantan2(45+/2)
(4)
N = 1.5(Nq-1) tan
(5)
s = 1-0.4 B/L
(6)
d = 1
183
The maximum applied pressure is calculated by the basic principle of (qmax = P/BL) and (qall =
qult/SF). The value of bearing capacity of sand must be multiplied with BCR value of (1.88) for
Netlon CE121 and (2.5) for Tensar SS2 [1][2]. Therefore the bearing capacity constraint is written in
MATLAB as:
g1 =-0.5*gama*x(1)*(1.5*(Nq-1)*tan(fai*pi/180))*(1-0.4*x(1)/x(2))*BCR*x(1)*x(2) + SF*P (7)
where,
gama: unit weight of sand (16.7 kN/m3).
fai: angle of internal friction of soil
pi: .
BCR: bearing capacity ratio of reinforced to unreinforced sand.
SF: safety factor.
P: total axial load.
4.2 Settlement Constraint of the Reinforced Soil Case
To satisfy that immediate settlement (si) of the footing does not exceed a permissible limit, the
subgrade reaction equation is used [3]:
si = wt/ks = (P/BL)/ks
(8)
where (ks) is the modulus of subgrade reaction (kN/m3) calculated by (ks = 120*qall) or (ks
=120*qult/SF) [3].
The permissible (si) is decided to be (0.025m), so,
3*qult = P/BL
(9)
Thus, the constraint can be written in MATLAB as:

g2 = 3*(0.5*gama*x(1)*(1.5*(Nq-1)*tan(fai*pi/180))*(1-0.4*x(1)/x(2))*BCR*x(1)*x(2) + SF*P
(10)
The dimensions of footing must enclose all the piers on the pile cap, therefore the lower
limits of (xi) i.e. (L&B) are pre-fed into the optimization tool box of MATLAB according to the
dimensions of the pile cap.
5. OPTIMIZATION RESULTS OF THE REINFORCED SOIL CASE
After running the program, the optimum dimensions (B and L) and the minimum
construction cost of the reinforced soil under the zone of one row of piers is obtained. Table (1)
shows the optimum cost and dimensions determined by the program that make the reinforced soil
under footing safe in sense of bearing capacity and allowable settlement to bear the applied load
from the super-structure of the bridge.
184
Table 1: Inputs and outputs of cost optimization analyses of the reinforced soil case
Inputs
Outputs
item
unit
value
kN
41544
Geogrids layers
No.
For Netlon
3
1.88
For Tensar
2.5
BCR
(cost of geogrid), cg
(cost of excavation), ce
IQD/m
IQD/m3
10000.000
1000.000
(cost of work), cw
IQD/m2
2000.000
1000.000
(cost of filling and compaction), cf
IQD/m
(unit weight of soil), s
kN/m
16.7
(Plane strain angle of internal friction),

(safety factor), SF
degrees
---
43
2
item
unit
value
25
Cost
IQD/row
29,856,000.000
6. OBJECTIVE FUNCTION OF THE PILES CASE

In this case, one row of piles as shown in Fig. (1) is put into consideration. The construction
cost of piles includes three items; cost of concrete (cc) in (IQD/m3), cost of steel reinforcement (cs)
in (IQD/ton), and cost of work (cwp) in (IQD/m) for (Dp = 1 to 1.5m). The cost of the piles cap is
excluded as in the case of reinforced soil. Other input parameters are; total load on footing (Pp), unit
weight of soil (s), angle of internal friction (), and safety factor (SF). The objective function is
formulated to yield the optimum size of pile including diameter (Dp) and length (Lp) in meters and its
cost for one row of piles according to the aforementioned variables which is expressed in MATLAB
as:
F = np*cwp*x(2) + np*cc*pi/4*(x(1))^2*x(2) + 0.01*7.8*np*cs*pi/4*(x(1))^2*x(2)
(11)
where, x(1) = Dp, x(2) = Lp, steel = 7.8 ton/m3, (np) is the number of piles, and the minimum steel
area is equal to (min cross sectional area of pile) where (min = 0.01) [3].
7. CONSTRAINTS OF THE PILES CASE
Failure due to end bearing and skin friction are taken into account in the formulation of
constraints. The allowable capacity of each pile should not be less than the anticipated applied load
of (10386 kN). The pile is considered a bored pile as they are constructed in the field. The ultimate
capacity of a single pile is determined according to the American Petroleum Institute (API) design
recommendations for axially loaded piles [4]. The (API) recommendations are based on a huge
database of axial pile load tests that is continually evaluated and updated. The procedure is as
follows:
Qult = Qb + Qs
Qb Qb max
Qb max for sand (c = 0) = (50 Nq tan ) Ab
Qb max for (c 0) = (cb Nc + 50 Nq tan ) Ab
Qult = (cb Nc + q Nq) Ab + ( cs + v k tan ) As
185
(12)
For (c = 0) and one layer of soil, the formula becomes:

Qult = q Nq Ab + (v k tan ) As
(13)
where:
Qb: end bearing capacity of pile.
Qs: skin resistance of pile.
q = s Lp
Nq: from Fig. (2) for Triaxial ( = 40) and (Nq = 160).
Ab: cross sectional area of pile.
v = s (Lp/2)
k = (1-sin)
= (concrete contacts with soil directly)
As = surface area of pile.
Figure 2: Chart for estimating bearing capacity factor N'q [5]

Therefore, the ultimate capacity formula of a single pile will be:
Qult = s Lp Nq (Dp)2/4 + (s (Lp/2) (1-sin) tan Dp Lp
(14)
This must be multiplied by (4) to suit the case study of four piles in one row. Since the
constraint is formulated to satisfy that Qult (s.p.) (Qmax SFp), then the constraint formula is
written in MATLAB as:
g1 = -1*share*np*(gama*x(2)/2*Nq*pi/4*(x(1))^2*K*(tan(fai*pi/180))*Pi*x(1)*x(2)) + Pp*SFp
(15)
where,
share = 33.8% (sharing ratio of footing after [1][2]).
np = 4 (number of piles).
gama = 6.7 kN/m3 (submerged unit weight of sand due to water table presence at 2 m depth) [6].
Nq: bearing capacity factor of pile from Fig. (2).
SFp: safety factor for piles.
Pp: total axial load on piled-strip system.
186
The size of pile (diameter and length) is used as in the typical design where (Dp = 1.5 m) and
(Lp = 18 m). Cost is estimated according to the prevailing local prices at the time of this study. After
running the program, the optimum (Dp) and (Lp) and the minimum cost of one row of piles is
obtained. The optimum values of (Dp) and (Lp) required to ensure that piles are safe in sense of
capacity is shown in Table (2).
Table 2: Inputs and outputs of cost optimization analyses of piles case
Inputs
Outputs
item
Pp
(cost of work), cwp
(cost of concrete), cc
(cost of reinforcement), cs
(submerged unit weight of soil), b
(Triaxial angle of internal friction),
(safety factor), SFp
unit
kN
IQD/m
IQD/m3
IQD/ton
kN/m3
degrees
---
value
41544
500000.000
150000.000
1000000.000
6.7
40
4
item
unit
value
Dp
1.5
Lp
18
Cost
IQD/row
65,009,466.000
8. PARAMETRIC ANALYSES
For the typical design adopted in this research, it is clear that the use of geogrids in the
foundation of highway multi-level intersection bridges resting on sandy soil, where the angle of
internal friction is higher than (40), is more economic than piles within the limits of design loads
adopted in the region. The saving in cost is found to be as much as (54%) in this case study. To have
a wider generalized view, a parametric study of the optimum cost of construction is investigated
using a wide range of loads and angles of internal friction of soil. Each parameter behavior is
investigated through sensitivity analysis.
To study the effect of angle of internal friction on cost, a set of different values of ()
(varying from 20 to 40) is analyzed. Figures (3) and (4) show the relationship between () and the
cost of Netlon and Tensar geogrids respectively. It is clear that the cost tends towards a constant
value when () increases. For the wide range of loads analyzed (varying from 20000 kN to 60000
kN), the cost of reinforced soil by Netlon and Tensar geogrids tends towards a constant value after
( = 35) and ( = 32) respectively. This is because Tensar geogrid have a higher BCR than of
Netlon geogrid. For the same range of loads, the cost of piles with dimensions of (Dp = 1.5 m) and
(Lp = 18 m) decreases gradually after ( = 20) then remain constant when the value of () exceeds
(25), as shown in Fig. (5).
1.00E+08
9.00E+07
20000 kN
8.00E+07
30000 kN
40000 kN
Cost ( IQD )
7.00E+07
50000 kN
6.00E+07
60000 kN
5.00E+07
4.00E+07
3.00E+07
2.00E+07
1.00E+07
0.00E+00
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Figure 3: Relationship between and cost for Netlon geogrid

187
9.00E+07
8.00E+07
20000 kN
30000 kN
7.00E+07
Cost ( IQD )
40000 kN
6.00E+07
50000 kN
60000 kN
5.00E+07
4.00E+07
3.00E+07
2.00E+07
1.00E+07
0.00E+00
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Figure 4: Relationship between and cost for Tensar geogrid

1.20E+08
20000 kN
30000 kN
1.00E+08
Cost ( IQD )
40000 kN
50000 kN
8.00E+07
60000 kN
6.00E+07
4.00E+07
2.00E+07
0.00E+00
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Figure 5: Relationship between and cost for piles

Figures (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) illustrate a comparison between costs of different cases
showing whether using geogrids or piles as foundations is more economic. The analyses cover
relationships between load and cost for values of ( = 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40).
Figure (6) shows the relationship between load and cost for ( = 20), where the cost
increases slightly when the applied load increases for Netlon, Tensar, and piled-strip cases. Figure
(7) shows the relationship between load and cost for ( = 25), where the cost of the piled-strip is
constant for the same range of loads because the value of (Nq) is high enough and the capacity of
piles of such dimensions are sufficient to resist the adopted range of loads.
Figures (8), (9), and (10) indicate that using geogrids foundation is again more economical
than piles for the load range of (20000 kN) to (60000 kN). The saving in cost increases rapidly when
the value of () increases, especially when it became higher than (25). This finding comes in line
with the established knowledge that the more the fines in soil the less the effectiveness of
reinforcement. Since physically, less for the same relative density refers to more fines especially
when it is (15%) finer than (0.075 mm) as required by AASHTO specifications and FHWA
guidelines [7]. The type of geogrids does not affect the cost because of the high bearing capacity of
sand, especially when the value of () is higher than (30).
188
1.20E+08
Cost (IQD)
1.00E+08
8.00E+07
6.00E+07
with Netlon
with Tensar
4.00E+07
piled-strip
2.00E+07
0.00E+00
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
Load (kN)
Figure 6: Relationship between load and cost for = 20
8.00E+07
7.00E+07
Cost (IQD)
6.00E+07
5.00E+07
4.00E+07
3.00E+07
with Netlon
2.00E+07
with Tensar
piled-strip
1.00E+07
0.00E+00
0
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000

Load (kN)
7.00E+07
6.00E+07
Cost (IQD)
5.00E+07
4.00E+07
3.00E+07
with Netlon
2.00E+07
with Tensar
1.00E+07
piled-strip
0.00E+00
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Load (kN)
189
7.00E+07
6.00E+07
Cost (IQD)
5.00E+07
4.00E+07
3.00E+07
with Netlon
2.00E+07
with Tensar
1.00E+07
piled-strip
0.00E+00
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Load (kN)
7.00E+07
6.00E+07
Cost (IQD)
5.00E+07
4.00E+07
3.00E+07
with Netlon
2.00E+07
with Tensar
1.00E+07
piled-strip
0.00E+00
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Load (kN)

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
According to the costs listed in tables (1) and (2), and the behavior of cost shown in figures
(3) to (10), it can be concluded that using geogrids in the foundation of multi-level highway
intersection bridges is more economic than piles within the range of applied loads, allowable bearing
capacities, and settlement covered by this study. For low () values the cost, using different
methods, increases with increasing loads and then becomes gradually constant for higher () values.
Geogrids is highly recommended to be used instead of piles when some underground constructions
or utilities undercrosss the working area.
190
REFERENCES
[1]
Tawfek Sheer Ali, Raid R. Al-Omary, and Zeyad S. M. Khaled Behavior of Geogrids under
Strip footing Resting on Sandy Soil AARJMD Journal, Vol., 1, Issue 24, August-2014.
[2] Tawfek Sheer Ali, Raid R. Al-Omary, and Zeyad S. M. Khaled Behavior and Load Sharing
of Piled-Strip System in Sandy Soil International Journal of Scientific & Engineering
Research, Volume 5, Issue 8,August-2014.
[3] Bowles, J. E., Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
(1996).
[4] American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms Load and Resistance Factor Design, API
Recommended practice 2A-LRFD, 1st edition, (1993).
[5] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Soils and
Foundations, Reference Manual Volume II, (2006).
[6] Al-Mawal Company for Soil Investigation, Report of Site Investigation for the Intersection
of the Northern Garage Bridge Project, Al-Najaf City, Iraq, (2012).
[7] Charlie Sun, Ph.D., P.E. and Clark Graves, Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls
Design Guidance, University of Kentucky Transportation Center, Spring, (2013).
[8] Dr. Zeyad S. M. Khaled, Dr. Basil S. Alshathr and Ali Hasan Hadi, Investigation of Material
Waste Incurred in the Construction Projects at Karbala Province in Iraq, International
Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 5, Issue 10, 2014, pp. 58 - 73,
ISSN Print: 0976 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 6316.
[9] Dr. Zeyad S. M. Khaled, Dr. Qais Jawad Frayyeh and Gafel Kareem Aswed, Modeling Final
Costs of Iraqi Public School Projects using Neural Networks, International Journal of Civil
Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 5, Issue 7, 2014, pp. 42 - 54, ISSN Print:
0976 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 6316.
[10] Ahmed Neamah Naji, Dr. V. C. Agarwal, Prabhat Kumar Sinha and Mohammed Fadhil
Obaid, Influence of Crude Oil Fouling on Geotechnical Properties of Clayey and Sandy
Soils, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 5,
Issue 3, 2014, pp. 60 - 70, ISSN Print: 0976 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 6316.
191

Cost Optimization of Using Geogrids Vs Piles in The Foundation of Interchange Bridges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cost Optimization of Using Geogrids Vs Piles in The Foundation of Interchange Bridges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International

Journal of Civil Engineering

ISSN 0976 6308 (Print)

COST OPTIMIZATION OF USING GEOGRIDS VS PILES

Tawfek Sheer Ali3

Assistant Professor, College of Engineering, Al-Nahrain University, Baghdad, Iraq

Figure 1: One design unit for the sake of cost comparison

3. OBJECTIVE FUNCTION OF THE REINFORCED SOIL CASE

Thus, the constraint can be written in MATLAB as:

(cost of filling and compaction), cf

(unit weight of soil), s

(Plane strain angle of internal friction),

6. OBJECTIVE FUNCTION OF THE PILES CASE

For (c = 0) and one layer of soil, the formula becomes:

Figure 2: Chart for estimating bearing capacity factor N'q [5]

Figure 3: Relationship between and cost for Netlon geogrid

Figure 4: Relationship between and cost for Tensar geogrid

Figure 5: Relationship between and cost for piles

Figure 6: Relationship between load and cost for = 20

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000

Figure 7: Relationship between load and cost for = 25

Figure 8: Relationship between load and cost for = 30

Figure 9: Relationship between load and cost for = 35

Figure 10: Relationship between load and cost for = 40

You might also like